According to Ted Lapkin (Perspectives, January 27), Steven Spielberg believes “dead bodies are the same, and self-defence is no excuse” when it comes to terrorism, most especially of the Israeli-Palestinian kind.
He’s only half right about the filmmaker’s latest, beautifully crafted movie, Munich.
Humanity has prospered because of an innate desire to carve out an existence for itself. It’s also true that violence – directed at both nature and fellow human beings – has been a necessary factor in our progress.
When considered in terms of self-preservation, murder and mayhem is an excuse of sorts. This point is made several times in the movie. What Spielberg also does is to develop with a delicate touch the idea that, validation notwithstanding, terrorism can never be part of our final solution.
This is the key take from Munich.
On the face of it, Spielberg looks to be justifying both sides of the conflict – the so-called “moral equivalence” argument. A more subtle reading of the movie surpasses any such inferior debate.
As the fatigued and mournful Israeli secret agent Avner, played by Eric Bana, says at the end of the film: “There is no peace at the end of this.”
Forget the value judgments arising from the violence – who is right, who is wrong. Spielberg begs us to dwell on the higher truth beyond the incomplete answers offered by terrorism and the responses to it.
The limited value of bloodshed over a more profound intention for humanity is even accepted by Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir shortly after the Olympic hostages are killed: “Every civilisation finds it necessary to negotiate compromises with its own values.” Such frankness is sorely missing in the new-age war on terror.
Rather than expressly acknowledging that they contravene much of what we hold dear, counter-terrorism efforts are claimed by politicians and others to be necessary to protect our values. This is patently untrue.
When Avner kills he is not really defending Jewish values. He is inspired by them, but one cannot secure what is essentially immutable. Fairness, honesty and loyalty are not things to be seized and manipulated.
Revenge was about Avner trying to safeguard his tribe in the hope that they would then have the opportunity to live righteously. This vital distinction is often lost. And it’s commonly foregone because we don’t want to recognise the dilemma that Spielberg has so expertly portrayed.
For if we accept that the war on terror cannot deliver what we actually want “protected”, the inevitable question arises: Why are we doing it?
The answer: We want to stay alive.
The risk here is the aggressiveness of our survival instincts completely overpowers what is more important. We can’t afford to be seen to be weak, so our leaders fudge the truth in anticipation that we won’t recognise there is no real answer.
Spielberg is not an apologist – he’s a realist. Violence in order to survive may be an excuse, but recognising as much doesn’t solve anything.
Formal acknowledgement of this reality may be the only way we have of finding a way of us all getting on together.
ENDS
This appeared in The Courier-Mail on 2 February 2006, under the title “Terror Not a Solution”.
© 2006 Mark Christensen
